Good morning Treasury.... Payback time

[Reheat On]

I see that MoD with lots of spin [reassessed sub threat blah blah greater capability blah greater cost effectiveness yawn] has dropped the MRA4 order from 21 to 18. see <a href="http://defence-data.com/current/page13766.htm" target="_blank">News release re TMH</a> . .. .No mention of worldwide committments, etc etc.. .Still, saves a few crews both air and ground from serving at HMP I guess..... .. .[Edited for thread title typo]. . . . <small>[ 17 March 2002, 03:12: Message edited by: Reheat On ]</small>

[DuckDogers]

At least there sort of right with the reasoning behind it as the sub threat has all but dissapated. But it shall be intersting to see how they juggle the assets between all the OOA stuff and the 'not too obvious' work that the Nimrod Fleet excell in at the moment.. .. .Oh, well perhaps they'll close HMP Kinloss and re-open St Mawgan!!!! Fat chance but worth wishing for!!!. . . . <small>[ 06 March 2002, 08:57: Message edited by: DuckDogers ]</small>

[kippermate]

DD. This is an open forum!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

So the Government think the submarine threat has gone?. .. .More nations have submarines than ever, including our potential adverseries. Saying there's no threat from submarines is as STUPID as saying our ships don't need air defence (see SHAR thread).

[ttthompson]

DD. .. .As far as I am aware, St M has never closed, but if Maritime want to use it again they had better be quick. The runway may be sold off to the civvies in the near future, as Yellow Heli's don't need 9000 ft of black top!!. .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[MAD Boom]

So submarines are no longer a threat, eh?. .So tell me why a crew was recently LCR for ASW if it is no longer a threat? Me thinks ASW is never dead, and will continue to be pertinent skills for all MR2 crews.. .And as for DuckDodger's comments- stupid B*******. Does your handle rhyme with a certain nickname at HMP Kinloss? Maybe too obvious.. .. .Anyway,on a more important note for this thread hear the order has been cut due to the kipper fleet being able to manage on current manning levels, therefore no need for the extra jets- we shall see!!. .. .MADS

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

RR,. . Don't sell off St M just yet, if the rumours about the home of Albert closing come to fruition the prospect of spending my last few years by the sea side sound fantastic.. .. .Any spelling mistakes are alcohol induced

[TheSeeFarShadow]

I reckon it's a 'cunning' plan to juggle the numbers of AEOps/WSOps required. Hence, not even a recruiting problem now, let alone a retention one.. .. .Take me home country road to the place I belong.... .. .A9 south to Blighty!

[TheSeeFarShadow]

PS. Anyway, it doesn't matter how many in total there are, there'll only ever be 2 serviceable at one time.

[Admin Guru]

Some of you may well have read in another Forum, that I commented on budgetary increases for the US and China, and continuing cutbacks for the UK. This enlightens me further - we're losing a warship, chopping an F3 Sqn, and cutting orders for new aircraft.. .I understand that budgets must be adhered to, however, can Blair not see that the RAF is stretched already. Is jointery (see my Purple Forum) the only answer?

[Dr Schlong]

Godammit! This is a thread and so is the "purple self-indulgent thingy" and not a forum! How difficult is this concept to grasp?! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />

[lucky_b*]

Does it really matter how many we have!! When is the first one supposed to be flying? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[henry crun]

Aw, Dr Schlong, don't be too hard on him.. .. .It is, after all, very difficult to grasp the difference between threads and forums. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[Retro Malfunction]

Sad to say but I am reliably informed that the real reason MRA4 has been cut to 18 aircraft is because British Wasteofspace will go bankrupt if it is forced to produce 21!!. .However at the moment Kinloss Sqns have approximateley 144 AEOps as we have been forced down the 12 man crew route due to manning shortages. It is envisaged that MRA4 will have 6 AEOps/WSOPs and each SQN will have 10 crews, thats 180!! call me a cynic but perhaps this was part of the decision to reduce MRA4 numbers, even still I cannot see them recruiting enough to fill these slots unless standards within the training system are reduced.

[keepin it in trim]

Retro. .Your manning figures assume 3 Sqns, perhaps the next announcement will be a reduction to 2. That would also neatly put the AEOps into a position of being overmanned as only 120 would be required ( based on your calc ). Now wouldn't that be convenient at the moment ( retention review etc) ?

[covec]

There are probably 20 to 30 of us who would happily accept redundancy NOW!. .. .I hope they do reduce the number of sqns!. .. .PS Real clever to LCR a crew on ASW on coming back from OOA. Did it after Granby too - w**kers!

[pitotheat]

Was the original number at the start of the MRA4 project 26?. .. .I suspect the reason is a mixture of BAe not being able to afford to produce the original contract and the lack of personnel, although knockers per crew will be fewer in the new aircraft. . .. .The crucial period will be the first few months/year after delivery as the crews and squadrons make the transition from old to new starting off already undermanned. . .. .Any date yet on the first airframe?

[DP Harvey]

I don't think we should discuss the number of personnel on the fleet. I'm not an expert in these matters but it seems to be a little too close to the security issue.. .. .Re the reduction to 3: its my own belief that the "perceived requirement in the 21st century" when BAe was given the contract has not changed at all. Whatever MOD and FCO thought in the early nineties, after the Cold War, hasn't changed since. What has changed is their realisation, lately, that they are involved in a bag of nails that needs their co-operation to get sorted out within UK PLC.. .. .IMHO BAe are behind the production schedule and want to shorten it by 3 frames on the time line. At the moment we are led to believe it will be the last 3 that we do not get. Whats the bet that sometime soon (2003) an announcement will be made that it will be the first 3 we don't get, with a contract completion (18 jets) at the original completion date (21 jets), approximately. We know our existing jets can fly until the original completion date (2009). Its just politics. Everyone in MOD and BAe wants this to succeed, no matter how long it takes. There is no alternative within the inward investment marketplace. Buying an off the shelf P3 would be a political disaster.